Huge Conflicts of Interest Plagues World Economic Forum

Jim Smith is a leading member of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) anti-corruption initiative while simultaneously serving as CEO of Reuters and on Pfizer’s board of directors, which is ethically questionable on multiple levels.

Reuters routinely reports on issues of vaccine safety both for adults and children. It is considered a part of the legacy media and has a huge influence on shaping the narrative.

The WEF has been a vocal leader in vaccine distribution and uptake, especially the Covid shot. Pfizer is set to gain hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of this push and the upbeat media spin.

Positive coverage of the WEF is also problematic for the news service. Reuters has run fact checks on negative claims, such as there is no evidence that the WEF chairman said that the internet needs to be reformed.

Regardless of the veracity of the claim, Smith’s intertwined business relationships pose a problem of optics. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can undermine the public trust of impartiality in the media.

It is situations like this that are behind the public plummeting view of the media. Trust in television and newspapers is at an all-time low.

Smith himself commented on the trust problem in his article “Corruption and the erosion of trust”. It is yet another classic example of rules for thee but not for me.

The WEF is most known in the United States for its claims of the need for a great reset. The organization is trying to encourage governments to modify their policies to account for global climate change and prepare for the next pandemic.

There has been a lot of unrest associated with these aims. Dutch farmers, for example, are protesting changes in climate policies reducing nitrogen emissions.

Reuters reports on these protests, which are in alignment with the WEF goals. It is difficult to assess if there is a bias in reporting given the interconnected nature of the organizations involved.

The people who see themselves in charge of the big decisions do not appear concerned with these ethical inconsistencies. For the moment, the people they rule are allowing it.

That may not be the case for much longer if current events are any indication.